Unbelievable. A 16-year-old Japanese boy just out of junior high was signed by the Kansas City Royals to a 7-year minor league baseball contract. Oh, and they threw in a $322,500 signing bonus.
Who's looking out for this kid? Where are the parents? Who thinks that giving up a basic education is the best thing for a child? What idiot in the Royals' organization thought this was a good idea? I know a 13-year-old that believes he doesn't need to go to school anymore; he's going to be rich doing YouTube videos. Don't count on it. This Japanese kid has a decent fastball, but how is not finishing his basic education any better than my 13-year-old friend?
Next Nominee
So, President Trump has offered his nominee for the Supreme Court. Brett Kavanaugh is Trump's first choice. Of course, as USA Today puts it, "Let the pitched, partisan battle begin." "Most Republicans are expected to support Kavanaugh, while most Democrats will almost certainly vote against him." What's the issue? Well, of course, Kavanaugh is a conservative, so the Democrats will be on the warpath. They'll want to ensure that no candidate offered by Trump is unduly influenced by the Constitution. (Must be true; I read it on the Internet.) Seriously, Chuck Schumer says if Kavanaugh is confirmed, "women's reproductive rights would be in the hands of five men on the Supreme Court."
Excuse me, Mr. Schumer. Since Kavanaugh is replacing a male, haven't they always been in the hands of five men on the Supreme Court? What he meant to say, you see, is that they will be "in the hands of five men we don't like."
Johnnie Moore, "an informal spokesman for the group of evangelicals who advise Trump," tweeted, "Evangelicals are singing `Hallelujah!'" Not all, Mr. Moore. Some of us don't put our trust in princes, so to speak. (Note: The Left is upset about Kavanaugh because he is opposed to the Affordable Care Act and abortion and such while the Right is upset with him because he isn't sufficiently opposed to the Affordable Care Act and abortion. Go figure.)
Irony
The deadline for reuniting children with parents from the "zero-tolerance" situation is fast approaching. They're estimating that only half of the families will be reunited by the deadline.
I think it's ironic that so many are outraged by Immigration "ripping children from their mothers' arms" but adamant that ripping them from their mothers' wombs is perfectly acceptable.
Editing Jesus
Carl Trueman starts his article about the political correctness purge in society today with a great sentence.
Yesterday's harmless activity — say, boys-only scouting — is tomorrow's act of cisgendered heteronormative patriarchal oppression of the Other.I don't know whether to be impressed or depressed that I know what every one of those words mean. And my defense mechanism is to laugh because, well, it's so crazy although it's true. What is he writing about?
"The Episcopal Church is set to debate the gender of God, specifically whether the Supreme Being is male or gender-neutral." Ostensibly, the story is that the Episcopal Church intends to revise their Book of Common Prayer. The book withstood centuries with minimal changes. The 20th century brought big changes. Now they're planning to correct Jesus who called God "Father" (Luke 1:1-4) and protect liturgy for "the earth and same-sex marriage ceremonies." But they're just keeping up with the Swedes. "Last year, the Church of Sweden updated its rules on God's gender, dropping the words 'He' and 'Lord' from clergy usage." Because, clearly, a "heavenly Father" who is Lord is "cisgendered heteronormative patriarchal oppression of the Other." Shame on Jesus! (How do they call themselves "Christian"?)
And there it is
Because of the horror of "ripping children from their mother's arms", the cries have been getting louder. Now the Democrats have responded. Now they're pushing to abolish ICE. Now, keep in mind, there is the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and there is the border patrol. The border patrol operates within 100 miles of the border. The rest is up to ICE. All the laws about illegal immigrants outside of the 100-mile limit, all the laws about guns, money, drugs, smuggling, human trafficking, sexual exploitation of women and children connected to illegal immigrants are enforced by ICE.
So, we get it. The Democrats want to "keep us safe" by eliminating the law enforcement arm that keeps people safe from smugglers, human traffickers, and all that. Fine, if that's what you want. I say, however, that simply eliminating the enforcement of the law is pointless. It effectively eliminates the law. But, hey, if that's what you think will keep us safe, why stop there? Eliminate border enforcement. Remove police departments. Shut down the FBI. Why stop so short?
People who seek to remove law enforcement without changing laws or offering protection are not your friends.
Too Much Me Too
Henry Cavill, the actor who played Superman in Man of Steel, got himself in trouble with the #MeToo movement. He said, "I think a woman should be wooed and chased, but maybe I’m old-fashioned for thinking that." He went to say that it's difficult to do that these days because in today's #MeToo environment "I don’t want to go up and talk to her, because I’m going to be called a rapist or something." And social media went wild. So, being the good, but apparently wimpy "Man of Steel" that he played, he apologized.
Never mind the fact that today's environment actually is so vague that just about any male-female interaction has the potential of being called "harassment." One woman filed a sexual harassment claim because "He didn't like my ideas because I'm a woman." Since today's sexual harassment is defined as "unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim," the definition and application has become too broad to anticipate. The problem with that is 1) it weaponizes #MeToo to force apologies when no wrongdoing was done and, worse, 2) detracts from the genuine problem of sexual harassment. Not the outcome they should want.
6 comments:
As far as the 13 year old baseball player, a couple of things.
There probably isn’t a MLB team that would be a better option for him, as long as the current leadership is in place.
MLB and NHL teams sign young kids regularly. What they are essentially doing is taking a chance that he’ll develop into a player. I’d be shocked if he does much beyond continue to do what he’s doing for the next few years.
FYI, this kind of thing happens all the time in FIFA, where really talented kids are moved into soccer academies at young ages.
I’m not totally agreeing with the practice, just pointing out that it might not be as horrible as it sounds.
Perhaps, but, to me, if he goes into baseball (or soccer or hockey or ...) to the exclusion of continuing through basic education, I cannot construe it as anything but cruel to the kid. "He'll make lots of money" is not a satisfactory reason. (No, you didn't offer it; I expect others would.)
I agree, but I’m not sure that these thing necessarily exclude basic education.
If this kid is going to continue in his education, I'll keep quiet.
My understanding is that it’s rare for young draftees to actually do much with the team until they’re older. I’m sure it depends on the sport and his parents also.
The article did say that he'd be in training for as much as 5 years, and baseball practice isn't an all day affair. I'm sure there'll be enough free time to come his education.
Post a Comment